FTFA:The researchers studied five different climate-change modelsgarbaged in and used them to predict an increase in westerly winds in the southern hemispherearrive at the desired pre-determined conclusions.

I've been to every city in Mexico. I came across an unclaimed piece of meat in Baja, turned out to be Rosie. I guessed he picked a knife fight with somebody better. Found one of your passports to Sumatra, I missed you by about a week at Fiji. But, I knew you wouldn't miss the fifty year storm, Bodhi.

Neither axis is labeled so there is no telling what is going on, but the equation seems to imply that the y-axis is actually a negative slope. If that is correct, that is the funniest intentional troll I've ever seen and that's impressive considering the tripe he usually posts in global warming threads.

Neither axis is labeled so there is no telling what is going on, but the equation seems to imply that the y-axis is actually a negative slope. If that is correct, that is the funniest intentional troll I've ever seen and that's impressive considering the tripe he usually posts in global warming threads.

The world's population has doubled in the time-frame of the graph, assuming it means what I presume it does. The carbon output will have at least doubled in that time too.

And global temperatures have increased in the last couple of decades.

What the hell is the X-axis all about? It's not time, of that I am sure. Bulldg may be right that this is just trolling.

Neither axis is labeled so there is no telling what is going on, but the equation seems to imply that the y-axis is actually a negative slope. If that is correct, that is the funniest intentional troll I've ever seen and that's impressive considering the tripe he usually posts in global warming threads.

The equation appears to be a least squares fit of a straight line through the data. The sourced data doesn't appear to exist anymore and there's no telling what "outliers" were dropped and what "homogeneity adjustments" means. Looks nothing like the other charts on the GISS site so I'm guessing this is the result of someone's science fair project.

So are the denialists and their google-fu here yet trying to pretend that their superficial understanding of a few random graphs is in anyway equivalent to the opinions of trained scientists with multiple degrees in climate science?

Neither axis is labeled so there is no telling what is going on, but the equation seems to imply that the y-axis is actually a negative slope. If that is correct, that is the funniest intentional troll I've ever seen and that's impressive considering the tripe he usually posts in global warming threads.

Bungles:So are the denialists and their google-fu here yet trying to pretend that their superficial understanding of a few random graphs is in anyway equivalent to the opinions of trained scientists with multiple degrees in climate science?

A Wildass Guess is still a guess no matter how "consensual" it is.Ok, I'll give it a Sophisticated Wildass Guess 'cause of all the expertness.

Nobody can predict the future and Nostradamus didn't do weather.Now go outside and play.

Cue the idiots who think that a "weather" pattern covers the entire surface of the earth for 140+ months.

This cherry-picking of 12 years minus a few months (since 12 years even shows the opposite of what you wish) yet again? We know you already acknowledge the problem inherent in making inferences from such a short period of time relative to short-term variability, so we might as well skip ahead:

SevenizGud:Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.

So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation.

I urge you once again to stand by your own words instead of hiding from them like a dishonest coward. Every time you ignore the fact that you are already aware of the problem with what you post, you're proving yourself to be more of a liar, and a coward, if not an irrational zealot.

Neither axis is labeled so there is no telling what is going on, but the equation seems to imply that the y-axis is actually a negative slope. If that is correct, that is the funniest intentional troll I've ever seen and that's impressive considering the tripe he usually posts in global warming threads.

Okay, so, on the x-axis, when I said it was 140+ months, and there are 140+ data points, that was not enough of a hint to tell you that it was months?

And on the y-axis, the figure heading that says exactly what the y-axis is was not enough of a hint?

But you are right that the slope is negative. Congratulations, you can graph-read to potato.

Damnhippyfreak:Every time you ignore the fact that you are already aware of the problem with what you post, you're proving yourself to be more of a liar, and a coward, if not an irrational zealot.

Hey, Hippy, you do know how to bold and italicize at the same time, right?

Because I know you'll want to do that next, when I point out that, according to NASA's own data, the last 140+ months show a declining trend in the land ocean temperature index...you know the one...the one that shows the worldwide average surface temperature.

Boy, look at it warm! Over the last 140+ months, it's warmed so much that it's only a little cooler than it was before.

SevenizGud:Damnhippyfreak: Every time you ignore the fact that you are already aware of the problem with what you post, you're proving yourself to be more of a liar, and a coward, if not an irrational zealot.

Hey, Hippy, you do know how to bold and italicize at the same time, right?

Because I know you'll want to do that next, when I point out that, according to NASA's own data, the last 140+ months show a declining trend in the land ocean temperature index...you know the one...the one that shows the worldwide average surface temperature.

Boy, look at it warm! Over the last 140+ months, it's warmed so much that it's only a little cooler than it was before.

Actually, if you take this post of yours literally and limit it to simply being within such a cherry-picked timeframe (instead of what you originally said), it's not that problematic. Well, there's the minor issue that "140+ months" isn't quite correct as when you look at 144 months (12 years as opposed to arbitrarily cutting off a couple of months as you did), it shows the opposite of what you want.

However, when you try to make a larger inference from such a carefully-selected and unrepresentative sample (as you originally did), especially as you're aware of the problem, that's less forgivable. You can keep on doing so and we can keep on easily debunking what you say, just note that every time you do so, you're proving me more and more right, and you prove yourself to be more and more of a coward and liar, if not an irrational zealot. It doesn't really affect me - you're just choosing to make yourself look like more and more of a liar and coward everytime you do so.

Uhhh, durrrr, you can't even graph-read to potato. Did you even look at your graph before you posted it? You see the red line there? That's the 5-year running mean. Do you see what it is doing now? Did you notice that it is going down now? Did you notice that it has been going down since 2004?

YOUR OWN GRAPH SHOWS DECLINING 5-YEAR MEAN FOR ALMOST A DECADE NOW.

So if by "it does not show cooling", you mean "it shows nearly a decade of declining 5-year running mean" then I agree with you.

Damnhippyfreak:You can keep on doing so and we can keep on easily debunking what you say, just note that every time you do so, you're proving me more and more right, and you prove yourself to be more and more of a coward and liar, if not an irrational zealot.

I am sure the guys at NASA will be happy to know that their last 140+ months of temperature data have "been debunked".

Furthermore, nothing says "lying" quite like posting NASA's data straight from their data table, and even including the link right on the graphic to the data itself so everyone can check. Yeah, that's all the classic hallmarks of a liar, amiright?

And finally, I just love that me posting NASA data showing cooling somehow proves you right. That's rich. Of course that's exactly what I've come to expect from the Chicken Little Brigade...the data prove you right NO MATTER HOW THE DATA TURN OUT, amiright?

SevenizGud:Damnhippyfreak: You can keep on doing so and we can keep on easily debunking what you say, just note that every time you do so, you're proving me more and more right, and you prove yourself to be more and more of a coward and liar, if not an irrational zealot.

I am sure the guys at NASA will be happy to know that their last 140+ months of temperature data have "been debunked".

Furthermore, nothing says "lying" quite like posting NASA's data straight from their data table, and even including the link right on the graphic to the data itself so everyone can check. Yeah, that's all the classic hallmarks of a liar, amiright?

And finally, I just love that me posting cherry-picking an arbitrary amount of NASA data showing cooling somehow proves you right. That's rich. Of course that's exactly what I've come to expect from the Chicken Little Brigade...the data prove you right NO MATTER HOW THE DATA TURN OUT, amiright?

FTFY. As I've said to you many times, the data is fine, cherry-picking a short, arbitrary time (when you know that's misleading) isn't. The fact that you're having to lie about what I'm saying is proving my contentions about you being a liar and coward more and more true.

Again, just like above, it's very easy to debunk what you're claiming (down to just posting a animated gif for some people). It just makes me more and more right, and you more and more like a liar and coward. Feel free to continue to do so.

SevenizGud:Okay. Last 140+ months trend is negative, EVEN BY NASA's OWN DATA. Too bad, Chicken Little. I am sure it will start to warm again someday.

And nobody disagrees with the fact that you can cherry pick 140 points out of real data and find a negative trend.

What we are saying, and have said to you many, many, many times is that 140 months does not mean shiat. Only an idiot like yourself would insist it does.

As an example ... look at 1939 to 1951 (about 140 months). Anyone stupid enough to assume that a 140 month trend means anything would say that the data clearly shows massive cooling (much, much greater than your current misleading lie). Yet look where the temperature went. Look at the overall trend. Clearly the massive drop during the 40's was not indicative of the overall trend.

Intelligent people who are familiar with statistics have analyzed climate data trends and have mathematically determined that you need around 30 years of data to separate the actual trend from the noise of natural fluctuations. If you include the 1940's into a 30 year average you will see that it correctly shows an upward trend (which did happen) whereas the 140 point trend incorrectly showed the opposite. This is why you cannot use 140 points and claim to be showing a trend.

Now I know that you will continue to report this statistically insignificant information because you are dishonest. You are a denier with an agenda and have no interest in showing reality.

So to sum up: We are not saying that NASA's (or anyone's) raw data is incorrect. We are saying that the way you are interpreting it is either deliberately dishonest or the act of an utter moron.

Neither axis is labeled so there is no telling what is going on, but the equation seems to imply that the y-axis is actually a negative slope. If that is correct, that is the funniest intentional troll I've ever seen and that's impressive considering the tripe he usually posts in global warming threads.

Chart tells you that the vertical axis is in 0.01 degree Celsius increments, relative to the average temperature of 1951 to 1980. The horizontal axis is in months, ending at least near the present, December of 2012, since they use data from then. And it is the TREND LINE of this data set which has a VERY slightly negative slope.

Okay. Last 140+ months trend is negative, EVEN BY NASA's OWN DATA. Too bad, Chicken Little. I am sure it will start to warm again someday.

...and you know making a longer-term inference from your cherry-picked short period of time is misleading, but still do so anyway, suggesting you're dishonest and unwilling to stand by even your own words.

As I said, easy to debunk, you prove me more and more right, and it makes you look worse every time. The only person you're sticking it to by repeating this stuff is yourself.

. . . a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading.

Indeed. As, for instance, when one looks at only 150 years of data when a large 1600-year cycle is in progress. I have already explained this to you many times. And, after all, it is YOUR logic and YOUR complaint -- but only when it applies to others. You are being dishonest, after being informed of you error. This is made worse by the fact that you castigate anyone who disagrees with you if they do the same thing -- like you are doing here.

If one follows the curve, one sees that the temperatures should be rising at about the rate they HAVE been, over the term of fifty to a hundred years. When the full context, rather than a short segment of a cycle, is viewed, it is clear that exactly the warming we are seeing is what is expected from past cycles.

Hey, if I were getting paid to post, like you must be, I'd be on-line all day, just waiting for the next post, too. As it is, I almost always check every day - but not always. If you warmtards would quit making the issue about the PEOPLE who disagree with you, and post timings, and irrelevant BS, you'd only look half as foolish as you do now.

So, 16 hours is now the end of a thread? One more lie to add to the pile you have already accumulated. You're going to have to rent a storage space soon.

As for lying, you really need to be more careful throwing such accusations around considering your recent more-mendacious-than-usual behavior. You still haven't dealt with your lies from the previous (and still-open) thread.

No lies in any open or closed thread. You must be reading your own posts. Careful with that -- that kark will rot your brains, assuming you have any left.

Damnhippyfreak:And yet, here we are, 16 hours after the thread went green.

GeneralJim:Hey, if I were getting paid to post, like you must be, I'd be on-line all day, just waiting for the next post, too.

Yeah ... that excuse might fly if pattern did not happen in every single thread.

In fact, there have been several occasions where you come in late, started posting your walls of lies, several people start actively re-debunking* them, so you back off and return many hours later and try again.

The pattern is well established and clearly motivated by the idea of posting propaganda unopposed where it can be most effective.

* All green-threadshiatter lies have been debunked dozens of times (hundreds in some cases). They don't change much: scientists are all liars, blogs backed by conservative think-tanks are true sources for science, UN taking over the world, etc. etc. etc.

Still digesting some of the comments from the thread. I'm certainly no scientist, but I'm fairly familiar with empirical evidence, peer-reviewed studies and documentation, etc...

but really, honestly, without trying to start a shiatstorm of comments pro/against climate change arguments,... what the hell IS the argument? Why is this even an argument? Why would someone want to be on the "climates change all the time" or "it's not man-made" or "it's actually cooling the last few years" side of the argument? what the hell could anyone possibly stand to gain by arguing against making efforts to clean our acts up?

TinyFist:what the hell could anyone possibly stand to gain by arguing against making efforts to clean our acts up?

Is it stock prices?

The pro-polution/pro-dependence on middle east oil position does seem pretty ridiculous. They like to argue that attempts at mitigation of AGW will "destroy the economy" even though the evidence suggests that costs of prevention are a drop in the bucket as compared to costs of repair/dealing with the fallout. They also like to ignore all the upsides of opening up new areas of research and manufacturing that green tech provides ... they don't want jobs for people if those jobs are in the green industry.

Of course they argue that all the scientists are corrupt (unless they find a paper that they can twist or mis-interpret to say what they like ... then it is 100% true and produced by the only non-corrupt scientists). The green-threadshiatter will take offense to this statement claiming that only an elite few at the top are corrupt. A ridiculous assertion as it does not explain why the thousands of climate scientists sit by in silence while the data they generated is misrepresented by this corrupt few. No, the conspiracy theory only works if all of the scientists are in on it ... which is what makes it so completely idiotic.

In the end it is simply and anti-science propaganda campaign to delay change. It is driven by those who profit from the status quo. It it has little paid soldiers like the green-threadshiatter in the trenches posting this propaganda. There are also other supporters who get their science from politicians who are also on the anti-science brigade.

GeneralJim:Damnhippyfreak: As for lying, you really need to be more careful throwing such accusations around considering your recent more-mendacious-than-usual behavior. You still haven't dealt with your lies from the previous (and still-open) thread.No lies in any open or closed thread. You must be reading your own posts. Careful with that -- that kark will rot your brains, assuming you have any left.

Heh. This itself (in bold) is a lie. The particular lie I'm referring to is documented here, or here or originally here. You're just tacking on even more lies in order to deny it.

In addition, most likely you will ignore this, further proving me right.

GeneralJim:Damnhippyfreak: And yet, here we are, 16 hours after the thread went green.Hey, if I were getting paid to post, like you must be, I'd be on-line all day, just waiting for the next post, too. As it is, I almost always check every day - but not always. If you warmtards would quit making the issue about the PEOPLE who disagree with you, and post timings, and irrelevant BS, you'd only look half as foolish as you do now.

So, 16 hours is now the end of a thread? One more lie to add to the pile you have already accumulated. You're going to have to rent a storage space soon.

It's more that you tend to post towards the tail end of a thread (so do I, by the way). No sense in denying such a established pattern.

As for me lying, I'll have to refer you to this guy:

GeneralJim:I see you've backed up your claim with the typical amount of support -- not a damned thing. Piss off, you ignoranus. As always, point out just ONE example of me lying, or STFU.